About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it decided to take these two, doma and proposition 8. why do you think they took these and not others? >> you know, after this election, this issue is so ripe for the supreme court the jurisdictions are so split in their laws, many states recognizing same-sex marriage and performing same-sex marriages. some states not recognizing them. this is the perfect scenario for the supreme court to step in and ultimately make a ruling. there are over 1,000 cases, joe, in which federal laws are impacted by marital status. the time has come. it's ripe. prop 8 was on the doorstep for the supreme court. here we go. >> avery, we were trading e-mails a little bit a while ago. one of the questions i asked you was whether the supreme court essentially gave itself an emergency escape hatch with one of the cases it chose. can you talk about that? >> late yesterday, as you know, joe, the supreme court amended its grant of review when it said, we want to know about the issue of standing. meaning does the person involved in the challenge have the right to be there in the first place. if the court doesn't then what
to take it up. many of us thought this is exactly what's going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states say the definition of marriage are. so it was crafted because it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro-gay so arguing towards the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck it down, that it leads to the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they are going to do the right thing and strike it down. the
to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set aside 31 state
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
. it's 2012 for pete's sake. we should all be equal by now. cheryl harris says "i think doma women get shut down quickly on solid legal grounds. prop 8 harder but kennedy will clear it up." >>> next the tug-of-war over the fiscal cliff. how much are democrats willing to give our entitlement cuts? we'll ask congressman elijah cummings that question. >>> the fight on capitol hill convinces a big powerball winner to claim his fortune now. you're watching "weekends with alex witt." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i tell them dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. its unique micro-clean formula kills 99.9% of odor causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning in a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why
's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is for all intensive purp
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)